On Feb 2, 8:39 am, Keith In Köln <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear Keith: Thanks for your questions! The goal of my greatly strengthened New Constitution isn’t to give the future government more things to… “control”, but to explain things so clearly that government involvement probably won’t be needed. I am quite explicit about the way those in government must respond to grievances. Failing to respond to one of those appropriately (the present norm) will get any public official fired quicker than you can snap your fingers! The burden of proof that an appropriate response has been made will be up to the individual just fired. And the person doing the firing can be any law abiding citizen. But it will ‘help’ that the person be astute and well educated. Here is an apt excerpt from my New Constitution:
“This New Constitution empowers every Citizen with broad civil rights that they may invoke at will without the necessity for the prior involvement of counsel or of a judicial authority. Those in or working for governments shall be subordinate to any Citizen demanding civil rights. The rightfulness of any such demand may be brought into question only by just and comprehensive proof—delivered at a later date in writing—with the apt named official(s) being in full jeopardy of such punishments as are herein defined, if they are in error.” A person fired by an ordinary citizen will have this choice: Pack up their things and go home, or contest the citizen firing. If they choose to contest the firing, and the firing is found to be justified in a court of law, the person who contested being firing will be going to jail for three years! If the person doing the firing was obviously incompetent, that fact can be brought out in a court of law. If there was provable malice, that person could be sued for damages. All of this can be avoided simply by reading and taking seriously what a Law Abiding Citizen is saying, and responding in a helpful manner. That is what being a… “representative” is all about, not thumbing-your-nose at those you are supposed to represent! “The constitutionality of laws may be brought into question by any law- abiding, prudent Citizen conversant on the whole New Constitution. The requirements for the media are made very clear. There is no government “Czar” deciding if the media is doing right. Flagrantly violating the provisions of my New Constitution should be obvious to any viewer or reader. Once an infraction has occurred, the medium is so notified. For example, if David Letterman makes injurious remarks about Sarah Palin, any Law Abiding Citizen can inform CBS that Letterman has violated the New Constitution and must be fired. If Letterman isn’t fired, immediately, the entire CBS News organization will be denied license and shut down, permanently. These things will take place without any delays or waiting for jury trials. Those in the media who violate the New Constitution are gone for good! The “truth over fiction” directive will prevent people who are making spurious arguments for or against some issue from having air time. The medium does its own policing. To often, the media thinks it is their obligation to will allow crazies—like the for-an-open-border Hispanics—air time. Since open borders aren’t in the best interest of American citizens, saying otherwise is just the type of “fiction” the media should edit out. If the medium, consistently, doesn’t edit out harmful fiction, they are in violation of the New Constitution and can be closed down. A workable government, deferential to the people, can only function if those employed by government aren’t treated like a privileged class. That means people can be fired. Simply by knowing that fact, the quality of those working for us in government will go up. — John A. Armistead — > > Good Afternoon (CET) John, > > Your proposed, "First Amendment" is interesting, and obviously written by > someone who has been wronged by our judiciary. I can understand your > premist first hand. > > I don't think that you can improve upon the First Amendment as it is written > today however. Who is it in your mind, that should be the determiner of > facts, regarding, for instance: > > 1. Who determines whether, a person is, (A) "competent"; (B) whether his > grievance is "legitimate"; and (C) whether his grievance has been properly > addressed? > > 2. Who is the individual or entity who determines whether a news > organization is broadcasting, "truth" or "fiction", and whether they have > been diligent in attempting to broadcast the truth? > > I suggest that the system that we have now, although not at all perfect, is > better than one that is controlled by a government. That a capitalist > system, motivated by the ability to prosper, is the better way for any news > organization to improve, and stay fair and balanced. I could expand on > this, and give a number of examples, but in general, there will always be > individuals who are searching for the truth, which is another prime > motivator. > > n Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 1:06 PM, NoEinstein <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Dear Studio: You are mainly an airhead who gets offended being shown > > to be wrong. I can assure you that any person who voluntarily gives > > up his or her life for their nation, knows in their heart that they > > are people of principle. The dictionaries side with me, not you, on > > the definition of 'patriot'. So quit you bluster. You are impressing > > no one. — John A. Armistead — Patriot! > > > On Jan 31, 6:32 pm, studio <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Jan 31, 6:03 pm, NoEinstein <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 31, 1:06 am, studio <[email protected]> wrote:> On Jan 30, > > 11:38 pm, NoEinstein <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Never call yourself a Patriot. > > > > > The term is given to you by others and not self proclaimed. > > > > > WRONG! > > > > At the Alamo, a line was drawn in the sand. > > > > Calling yourself a Patriot has nothing to do with the Alamo. > > > Not a damn one of those men called themselves Patriots. > > > Cite me a reference if I'm wrong. > > > > > Those willing to > > > > fight for the Texas cause were asked to cross that line. In short, > > > > those willing to fight for a cause determine their own place in > > > > history. > > > > The Mexican's fought and won that battle. > > > And "the cause"? > > > To grab land? > > > Might makes right? > > > The winner gets to write the history? > > > > > My Dictionary defines patriot: "One who loves his country, > > > > and zealously guards its welfare; especially a defender of popular > > > > liberty." > > > > Doesn't sound like guarding to me... well, maybe guarding what you > > > want to guard of it. > > > > > If my spending fourteen plus years of my life writing my > > > > New Constitution to SAVE the USA doesn't qualify as patriotism, I > > > > don't suppose anyone can qualify. — John A. Armistead — Patriot! > > > > What it qualifies you as, is self proclaiming and self serving. > > > It doesn't save anything, much less the US. > > > Any Constitution written by one person is not a Constitution at all, > > > it's Mein Kampf. > > > -- > > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > > * Visit our other community > > athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/> > > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
